|
The gun debate is just like any other debate. There's moderates on both sides, and there's extremists on both sides. Right now, the moderates are still in control. I've seen a lot of outlandish proposals thrown out (psych evals before buying, no semi-auto anything, no more "armor piercing pistol ammo" whatever that is, etc).
Fortunately, the extreme anti's for the most part don't have enough sway to push those extreme laws. What they are doing is rallying the moderate anti's for what's currently on the table. I doubt a new AWB gets passed, but I am a little less confident about being able to stave off the background checks and mag bans.
I fear we're fighting a losing battle in the long run. As more Americans move to the cities, they have less use for a gun. As anyone that lives in the city and doesn't own or have access to land in the country can tell you, going shooting or hunting is a PITA. As shooting becomes less available to more and more Americans, the idea of what's reasonable is probably going to shift more towards the anti side.
I read on these forums a lot of people looking down their noses at those who don't have much use for a gun. Us telling them they need one for protection is like telling someone they need more exercise. True, yes. Will it be done? History says no. These people who don't have much use for a gun since they don't plink or hunt then get caught up in the gun debate and tend to fall towards more restrictions.
The whole "if you don't like guns, you're a pinko commie trying to make us eat soy burgers and do yoga blah blah" argument is what drives them that way. If you want to encourage more people to lean our way, you have to provide them with a reason to, for reasons I outlined above.
Everyone is ignorant on some issues, there's plenty of issues I'd be willing to bet not everyone hear has full knowledge but still has an opinion about. Same with the moderate anti's.
|